(1)

Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). Since further amendments are to be made, that Regulation should be recast in the interests of clarity.

(2)

In particular, Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) amended Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 and required retail roaming surcharges to be abolished in the Union from 15 June 2017, subject to the fair usage of roaming services and the possibility of applying a derogation mechanism for the sustainability of the abolition of retail roaming surcharges, also referred to as ‘roam-like-at-home’ (RLAH). In addition, the Commission undertook a review of the wholesale roaming market with a view to assessing measures necessary to enable the abolition of retail roaming surcharges in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012. Following that review, Regulation (EU) 2017/920 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) was adopted with the aim of regulating national wholesale roaming markets in order to abolish retail roaming surcharges by 15 June 2017 without distorting the domestic or the visited markets.

(3)

On 29 November 2019, the Commission published its first full review of the roaming market (the ‘Commission Report’), showing that travellers across the Union have benefited significantly from the abolition of retail roaming surcharges. The use of mobile services, namely regulated voice, SMS or data roaming services, while travelling in the Union has increased rapidly and massively, confirming the impact of the Union’s roaming rules. The Commission Report concluded that, despite signs of some competition dynamics in both the retail and wholesale roaming markets, the underlying basic competition conditions have not changed and are not likely to change in the foreseeable future. The regulation of the retail and wholesale markets therefore remains necessary and should not be abandoned. In particular, the Commission Report found that, at the wholesale level, the sharp reduction in price caps has contributed to a further reduction in wholesale roaming prices, which has benefited net outbounder operators, that is, operators with a customer base that consumes more mobile services on the networks of partner operators in other Member States than those consumed by the partner operators’ customer base on its own network.

The Commission Report took note of the recommendation of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) to further lower wholesale roaming price caps. The Commission also analysed and documented the need to further lower wholesale roaming price caps and assessed the level of reduction that enables visited operators to recover the costs of providing wholesale roaming services. The Commission Report referred to the requirement of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 that roaming customers have access to the same services in other Member States, for the same price, provided that those services can be delivered on the visited network. The Commission Report took note of the very recent development of new ways of trading wholesale roaming traffic, such as online trading platforms that have the potential to foster competition on the wholesale roaming market and facilitate negotiation between operators. Finally, it observed that the separate sale of data roaming services has not been taken up by the market.

(4)

Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 expires on 30 June 2022 and the aim of this Regulation is to recast it while introducing new measures to increase transparency, including transparency with regard to the use of value-added services while roaming and the use of roaming on non-terrestrial public mobile communications networks, and to ensure a genuine RLAH experience in terms of quality of service and access to emergency services while roaming. The validity of this Regulation is set for 10 years, until 2032, in order to provide certainty in the market and minimise regulatory burdens. This Regulation introduces a requirement that the Commission carry out reviews and submit reports to the European Parliament and to the Council in 2025 and 2029, followed, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal to amend this Regulation, where market developments so require. Because of rapid market developments and the rapid roll-out of new technologies, the Commission should assess, in particular, whether it is appropriate to make a legislative proposal to amend this Regulation when issuing its first report in 2025.

(5)

The national regulatory authorities or other competent authorities that are responsible for safeguarding and promoting the interests of mobile customers who normally reside within their territory are not able to control the behaviour of the visited network operators situated in other Member States on whom those customers depend when using international roaming services. That lack of control could diminish the effectiveness of measures taken by Member States based on their residual competence to adopt consumer protection rules.

(6)

The mobile communications market remains fragmented in the Union, with no mobile network covering all Member States. As a consequence, in order to provide mobile communications services to their domestic customers travelling in other Member States, roaming providers purchase wholesale roaming services from, or exchange wholesale roaming services with, operators in visited Member States.

(7)

An internal telecommunications market cannot be said to exist while there are differences between domestic and roaming prices. Therefore, differences between domestic charges and roaming charges should be eliminated in order to establish an internal market for mobile communication services.

(8)

A common, harmonised approach should be employed to ensure that users of terrestrial public mobile communications networks when travelling within the Union do not pay excessive prices for Union-wide roaming services, thereby enhancing competition concerning roaming services between roaming providers, achieving a high level of consumer protection and preserving both incentives for innovation and consumer choice. In view of the cross-border nature of the services concerned, such a common approach is needed to ensure that roaming providers can operate within a single coherent regulatory framework, based on objectively established criteria.

(9)

The widespread use of internet-enabled mobile devices means that data roaming is of great economic significance. This is relevant for both users and providers of applications and content. In order to stimulate the development of this market, charges for data transport should not impede growth, in particular considering that the development and deployment of next generation, high-speed networks and services are expected to accelerate steadily.

(10)

Directives 2002/19/EC (7), 2002/20/EC (8), 2002/21/EC (9), 2002/22/EC (10) and 2002/58/EC (11) of the European Parliament and of the Council aimed to create an internal market for electronic communications within the Union, while ensuring a high level of consumer protection through enhanced competition. With the exception of Directive 2002/58/EC, those Directives were repealed by Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12).

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 aims to stimulate investment in and take-up of very high capacity networks in the Union as well as to set new spectrum rules for mobile connectivity and 5G. Directive (EU) 2018/1972 also provides for national regulatory authorities and other competent authorities, as well as BEREC, the Commission and the Member States, to pursue, inter alia, the objectives of contributing to the development of the internal market and promoting the interests of the citizens of the Union. That Directive ensures, inter alia, that all end-users have access to affordable communication, including the internet. It increases consumer protection and security for users, and facilitates regulatory intervention.

(11)

The retail and wholesale roaming markets exhibit unique characteristics which justify exceptional measures which go beyond the mechanisms otherwise available under Directive (EU) 2018/1972.

(12)

This Regulation should allow for a departure from the rules otherwise applicable under Directive (EU) 2018/1972, namely that prices for service offerings are to be determined by commercial agreement in the absence of significant market power, thereby accommodating the introduction of complementary regulatory obligations which reflect the specific characteristics of Union-wide roaming services.

(13)

To protect roaming customers against increasing retail prices for regulated roaming services, namely regulated voice, SMS or data roaming services, due to fluctuations in the reference exchange rate of currencies other than the euro, a Member State whose currency is not the euro should use an average of several reference exchange rates over time to determine the maximum applicable surcharges in its currency. Where maximum charges are not denominated in euro, the applicable values should be determined in the relevant currency by applying the average of several reference exchange rates over time published in the Official Journal of the European Union (Official Journal) on the date specified in this Regulation. Where there is no publication on the date specified, the applicable reference exchange rates should be those published in the first Official Journal following that date and containing such reference exchange rates. To align the determination of values in currencies other than the euro with the rule applied to intra-EU communications in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, the maximum charges in currencies other than the euro should be determined by applying the average of the reference exchange rates published by the European Central Bank on 15 January, 15 February and 15 March of the relevant calendar year in the Official Journal. Maximum charges calculated in this way for 2022 should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation until 15 May 2023.

(14)

In order to allow for the development of a more efficient, integrated and competitive market for roaming services, there should be no restrictions that prevent undertakings from effectively negotiating wholesale access for the purpose of providing roaming services, including for machine-to-machine communications. Obstacles to access to such wholesale roaming services due to differences in negotiating power and in the degree of infrastructure ownership of undertakings should be removed. To that end, wholesale roaming agreements should respect the principle of technology neutrality and ensure that all operators have an equal and fair opportunity to access all available networks and technologies and should respect the principle that such agreements be negotiated in good faith to allow roaming providers to offer retail roaming services equivalent to the services they offer domestically. This Regulation does not impose an obligation on roaming providers to conclude wholesale roaming agreements only with those operators that have the most advanced networks, subject to compliance with the retail quality of service requirements laid down in this Regulation. The operators seeking wholesale roaming access should have the freedom to negotiate their wholesale roaming agreements according to their own commercial needs and the best interests of their end-users. Therefore, in the course of making the transition towards next generation mobile communications networks and technologies, roaming providers should gradually ensure wholesale roaming access that enables the provision of retail roaming services in other Member States under equivalent contractual conditions as in their home Member State, in accordance with the objectives of RLAH. Roaming providers should offer retail roaming services that are equivalent to mobile communication services that they offer domestically where there is widespread coverage or when there are competitive offers for access to such next generation mobile communications networks and technologies in the visited Member State, in accordance with the BEREC guidelines for wholesale roaming access.

Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) and resellers of mobile communication services without their own network infrastructure typically provide roaming services based on commercial wholesale roaming agreements with their host mobile network operators in the same Member State. Commercial negotiations, however, may not leave enough margin to MVNOs and resellers for stimulating competition through lower prices. The removal of those obstacles and balancing the bargaining power between MVNOs or resellers and mobile network operators by an access obligation and wholesale caps should facilitate the development of alternative, innovative and Union-wide roaming services and offers for customers. Directive (EU) 2018/1972 does not provide for a solution to this problem via the imposition of obligations on operators with significant market power.

(15)

An obligation to meet reasonable requests for wholesale access to public mobile communications networks for the purpose of providing roaming services should therefore be provided for. Such access should be in line with the needs of those seeking access. End-users of services requiring modern technologies and retail roaming services should be able to enjoy the same quality of service when roaming as they do domestically. A wholesale roaming access obligation should therefore ensure that access seekers can replicate the retail services offered domestically, unless visited network operators that are requested to provide access can prove that it is technically unfeasible to do so. The parameters under which mobile services are offered by the visited network operator to its own domestic customers are understood to be technically feasible. Subject to the relevant wholesale roaming agreement and without prejudice to the retail obligations laid down in this Regulation, the visited network operator should ensure that roaming customers on its network are not subject to conditions that are less advantageous than those it offers to its domestic customers, for example in terms of quality of service, such as the available speed. Access should be refused only on the basis of objective criteria, such as technical feasibility and the need to maintain network integrity.

The visited network operator should not refuse or limit access on the basis of commercial considerations in such a way that the provision of competing roaming services is restricted. Where access is refused, the aggrieved party should be able to submit the case for dispute resolution in accordance with the procedure set out in this Regulation. In order to ensure a level playing field, wholesale access for the purpose of providing roaming services should be granted in accordance with the regulatory obligations laid down in this Regulation applicable at the wholesale level and should take into account the different cost elements necessary for the provision of such access. A consistent regulatory approach to the wholesale access for the provision of roaming services should contribute to avoiding distortions between Member States. BEREC should, in coordination with the Commission and in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders, issue guidelines for wholesale access for the purpose of providing roaming services.

(16)

A wholesale roaming access obligation should include the provision of direct wholesale roaming services as well as the provision of roaming services on a wholesale basis for resale by third parties. The wholesale roaming access obligation should also cover the mobile network operator’s obligation to enable MVNOs and resellers to purchase regulated wholesale roaming services from wholesale aggregators which provide a single point of access and a standardised platform to roaming agreements all over the Union. In order to ensure that operators provide access to all facilities necessary for direct wholesale roaming access and wholesale roaming resale access to roaming providers within a reasonable period of time, a reference offer should be published containing the standard conditions for direct wholesale roaming access and wholesale roaming resale access. The publication of the reference offer should not prevent commercial negotiations between access seeker and access provider on the price level of the final wholesale agreement or on additional wholesale access services that go beyond those necessary for direct wholesale roaming access and wholesale roaming resale access.

(17)

A wholesale roaming access obligation should cover access to all the components necessary to enable the provision of roaming services, such as network elements and associated facilities; relevant software systems including operational support systems; information systems or databases for pre-ordering, provisioning, ordering, maintaining and repair requests, and billing; number translation or systems offering equivalent functionality; mobile networks and virtual network services.

(18)

If access seekers for wholesale roaming resale request access to facilities or services in addition to what is necessary for the provision of retail roaming services, mobile network operators may recover fair and reasonable charges for those facilities or services. Those additional facilities or services could, inter alia, be value-added services, additional software and information systems or billing arrangements.

(19)

Article 109 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 requires Member States to ensure that all end-users have access to emergency services, free of charge, through emergency communications to the most appropriate public safety answering point (PSAP). That Directive also requires Member States to ensure that access by end-users with disabilities to emergency services is available through emergency communications, including when travelling within the Union, and that such access is equivalent to that enjoyed by other end-users. Those means of access could include a real time text service or total conversation service as provided for by Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) or other non-voice communications services, such as SMS, messaging or video services through emergency applications, or relay services, which Member States deploy taking into account the requirements laid down in Union law and the capabilities and technical equipment of the national PSAP system. The implementation of the means of access to emergency services available to roaming customers with disabilities and the delivery of caller location information should be based to the greatest extent possible on European standards or specifications. Such standards should be promoted by the Commission and Member States in cooperation with European standardisation bodies and other relevant bodies.

It is for the Member States to determine the type of emergency communications that are technically feasible for ensuring roaming customers’ access to emergency services. In order to ensure that roaming customers have access to emergency communications under the conditions laid down in Article 109 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972, visited network operators should include in the reference offer information about what type of emergency communications are mandated and technically feasible for ensuring access for roaming customers under national measures in the visited Member State. In addition, wholesale roaming agreements should include information on the technical parameters for ensuring access to emergency services, including by roaming customers with disabilities, as well as for ensuring the transmission of caller location information, including handset-derived information, to the most appropriate PSAP in the visited Member State. Such information should allow the roaming provider to identify and provide the emergency communication and the transmission of caller location free of charge.

(20)

Certain conditions may be included in the reference offers in order to allow mobile network operators to prevent permanent roaming or anomalous or abusive use of wholesale roaming access. In particular, where the visited network operator has reasonable grounds for considering that permanent roaming by a significant share of the roaming provider’s customers or anomalous or abusive use of wholesale roaming access is taking place, it should be able to require the roaming provider to provide, in an aggregated manner and in full compliance with Union and national data protection requirements, information allowing the determination of whether a significant share of the roaming provider’s customers is in a situation of permanent roaming or whether there is anomalous or abusive use of wholesale roaming access, such as information on the share of customers with insignificant domestic consumption compared to the roaming consumption. Moreover, termination of wholesale roaming agreements with a view to preventing permanent roaming or anomalous or abusive use of wholesale roaming access should be effected only where less stringent measures have failed to address the situation. Such termination should be subject to prior authorisation by the national regulatory authority of the visited network operator, taking the utmost account of the opinion of BEREC where it has been consulted.

Less stringent measures could consist of setting higher wholesale charges not exceeding the maximum wholesale charges provided for in this Regulation for volumes exceeding an aggregated volume specified in the agreement. Such higher wholesale charges should be set in advance, or from the moment when the visited network operator has established and informed the home network operator that, based on objective criteria, permanent roaming by a significant share of the roaming provider’s customers or anomalous or abusive use of wholesale roaming access is taking place. Less stringent measures could also consist of a commitment by the home network operator to adopt or revise the fair use policies applicable to its customers in accordance with the implementing acts adopted pursuant to this Regulation, or the possibility for the visited network operator to request that the wholesale roaming agreement be revised. In the interests of transparency, the national regulatory authority should make information concerning requests for authorisation to terminate wholesale roaming agreements available to the public, subject to business confidentiality.

(21)

In order to allow for the development of more efficient, integrated and competitive markets for roaming services, when negotiating wholesale roaming access for the purpose of providing retail roaming services, operators should be given the possibility of negotiating innovative wholesale pricing schemes which are not directly linked to volumes actually consumed, such as flat payments, upfront commitments or capacity-based wholesale roaming agreements, or pricing schemes that reflect variations of demand across the year. Subject to the limitations on permanent roaming included in this Regulation, machine-to-machine communications, namely services involving an automated transfer of data and information between devices or software-based applications with limited or no human interaction, are not excluded from the scope of this Regulation or the relevant wholesale roaming access obligations laid down in this Regulation, including the provisions on fair usage of roaming services and the possibility for mobile network operators of including in their reference offers conditions to prevent permanent use of regulated roaming services or the anomalous or abusive use of wholesale roaming access. However, permanent roaming is subject to commercial negotiations and can be agreed by two roaming partners in a wholesale roaming agreement. In order to allow the development of more efficient and competitive markets for machine-to-machine communications, it is expected that mobile network operators will increasingly respond to and accept all reasonable requests for wholesale roaming agreements on reasonable terms and explicitly allow permanent roaming for machine-to-machine communications.

They should be able to establish flexible wholesale roaming agreements enabling wholesale roaming services and to apply tariff schemes which are not based on the volume of data consumed but instead are based on alternative schemes, for example, the number of connected machines per month. In that context, in the event of a cross-border dispute, the parties involved should have recourse to the dispute resolution procedure laid down in Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972. The negotiating parties should have the option of agreeing not to apply maximum regulated wholesale roaming charges for the duration of wholesale roaming agreements. That would exclude the possibility for either party to subsequently request the application of volume based maximum wholesale charges to actual consumption, as set out in this Regulation. This should be without prejudice to obligations as regards the provision of regulated retail roaming services. Furthermore, the Commission Report takes note of the very recent development of new ways of trading wholesale roaming traffic, such as online trading platforms, that have the potential to facilitate the negotiation process between operators. The use of similar instruments could contribute to enhancing competition in the wholesale roaming market and drive further down actual wholesale rates charged.

(22)

Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 provides that end-users are not to be prevented by operators from accessing regulated data roaming services on a visited network offered by an alternative roaming provider. However, this structural measure, introduced by way of the obligation for the separate sale of data roaming services, has become ineffective following the introduction of RLAH. In addition, due to the lack of uptake in the market, this obligation no longer appears to be relevant. Therefore, provisions that require operators to provide separate sales of roaming data services at retail level should no longer apply.

(23)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in respect of setting out detailed rules on the application of fair use policies and on the methodology for assessing the sustainability of the provision of retail roaming services at domestic prices, as well as on the application to be submitted by a roaming provider for the purposes of that assessment. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14). Until the adoption of those implementing measures, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2286 (15) should continue to apply.

(24)

Regulatory obligations should be imposed at both retail and wholesale levels to protect the interests of roaming customers, since experience has shown that reductions in wholesale prices for Union-wide roaming services may not be reflected in lower retail prices for roaming, owing to the absence of incentives for this to happen. On the other hand, action to reduce the level of retail prices without addressing the level of the wholesale costs associated with the provision of those services could risk disrupting the orderly functioning of the internal market for roaming services and would not allow a higher degree of competition.

(25)

The abolition of retail roaming surcharges in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 was necessary to establish and ease the functioning of a digital single market across the Union. However, that Regulation alone was not sufficient to ensure the proper functioning of the roaming market. This Regulation should contribute to pricing models in domestic markets not being affected by the abolition of retail roaming surcharges.

(26)

The relevant domestic retail price should be equal to the domestic retail per-unit charge. However, in situations where there are no specific domestic retail prices that could be used as a basis for a regulated retail roaming service (for example, in the case of domestic unlimited tariff plans, bundles or domestic tariffs which do not include data), the domestic retail price should be deemed to be the same charging mechanism as if the customer were consuming the domestic tariff plan in that customer’s Member State.

(27)

When roaming within the Union, roaming customers should be able to use the retail services to which they subscribe and benefit from the same level of quality of service as at home. To that end, and in accordance with the wholesale access obligations laid down in this Regulation, roaming providers and mobile network operators should take the necessary measures to ensure that regulated retail roaming services are provided under the same conditions as if such services were consumed domestically. For example, if the maximum available data speed of the visited network is equal to, or higher than, the maximum available speed offered domestically by the roaming provider, the roaming provider should not offer a lower speed than the maximum available speed provided domestically. If the maximum available data speed of the visited network is lower than the maximum available speed offered domestically by the roaming provider, the roaming provider should not offer a lower speed than that maximum available speed of the visited network. Where a newer network generation or technology is available on the visited network, the roaming provider should not restrict the roaming service to a network generation or technology older than that offered domestically. Furthermore, in particular during the transition to next generation mobile communications networks and technologies, where the implementation of those networks and technologies by the roaming provider and the visited network operator are not comparable, the roaming provider may offer the regulated retail roaming service with the existing mobile communication technology. Commercial considerations that result in a reduction of the quality of regulated retail roaming services, such as reducing bandwidth to reduce roaming volumes, should be prohibited. Operators should take reasonable measures to minimise any undue delay in handovers between mobile communications networks, without prejudice to Article 28 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972. National administrations and operators can conclude spectrum coordination agreements and ensure coverage, at least along 5G corridors and terrestrial transport paths.

(28)

Roaming providers should be able to apply fair use policies to the consumption of regulated retail roaming services provided at the applicable domestic retail price. Fair use policies should only address the abusive or anomalous usage of regulated retail roaming services by roaming customers, such as the use of such services by roaming customers in a Member State other than that of their domestic provider for purposes other than periodic travel. Implementing measures on the application of fair use policies should ensure that this objective is not circumvented by roaming providers to pursue other purposes to the detriment of roaming customers engaged in any form of periodic travel. In cases of force majeure caused by circumstances such as pandemics, temporary border closures or natural disasters, which involuntarily extend the period of temporary stay of the roaming customer in another Member State, roaming providers should extend the applicable fair use allowance for an appropriate period upon a justified request by the roaming customer. Any fair use policy should enable the roaming provider’s customers to consume volumes of regulated retail roaming services at the applicable domestic retail price that are consistent with their respective tariff plans. Implementing measures on the application of fair use policies should take into account the many and varied patterns of periodic travel by roaming customers, in order to ensure that fair use policies do not act as a barrier to a genuine RLAH experience on the part of such customers.

(29)

When reviewing its implementing acts the Commission, after consulting BEREC, should assess the extent to which market conditions, consumption and travel patterns, the evolution and convergence of pricing and the observable risk of distortion of competition would allow for a sustainable provision of roaming services at domestic prices for periodic travel and the possibility of limiting the application and effects of the measures under a fair use policy to exceptional cases.

(30)

In specific and exceptional circumstances where a roaming provider is not able to recover its overall actual and projected costs of providing regulated retail roaming services from its overall actual and projected revenues from the provision of such services, that roaming provider should be able to apply for authorisation to apply a surcharge with a view to ensuring the sustainability of its domestic charging model. The assessment of the sustainability of the domestic charging model should be based on relevant objective factors specific to the roaming provider, including objective variations between roaming providers in the Member State concerned and the level of domestic prices and revenues. That may, for example, be the case for flat-rate domestic retail models of operators with significant negative traffic imbalances, where the implicit domestic unit price is low and the operator’s overall revenues are also low relative to the roaming cost burden, or where the implicit unit price is low and actual or projected roaming services consumption is high. In order to avoid the domestic charging model of roaming providers being rendered unsustainable by such cost recovery problems, generating a risk of an appreciable effect on the evolution of domestic prices or so-called ‘waterbed effect’, roaming providers, upon authorisation by the national regulatory authority, should, in such circumstances, be able to apply a surcharge to regulated retail roaming services only to the extent necessary to recover all relevant costs of providing such services.

(31)

To that end, the costs incurred in order to provide regulated retail roaming services should be determined by reference to the effective wholesale roaming charges applied to the outbound roaming traffic of the roaming provider concerned in excess of its inbound roaming traffic, as well as by reference to reasonable provision for joint and common costs. Revenues from regulated retail roaming services should be determined by reference to revenues at domestic price levels attributable to the consumption of regulated retail roaming services, whether on a unit-price basis or as a proportion of a flat fee, reflecting the respective actual and projected proportions of regulated retail roaming services consumption by customers within the Union and domestic consumption. Account should also be taken of the consumption of regulated retail roaming services and domestic consumption by the roaming provider’s customers, and of the level of competition, prices and revenues in the domestic market, and any observable risk that roaming at domestic retail prices would appreciably affect the evolution of such prices.

(32)

Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 provides that, where a roaming provider applies a surcharge for the consumption of regulated retail roaming services in excess of any limits under any fair use policy, the sum of the domestic retail price and any surcharge applied for regulated roaming calls made, regulated roaming SMS messages sent or regulated data roaming services are not to exceed EUR 0,19 per minute, EUR 0,06 per SMS message and EUR 0,20 per megabyte used, respectively. Given the effective functioning of RLAH rules since 15 June 2017, that provision is no longer necessary.

(33)

In accordance with the principle that ‘the calling party pays’, mobile customers do not pay for receiving domestic mobile calls and the cost of terminating a call in the network of the called party is covered in the retail charge of the calling party. The convergence of mobile termination rates across the Member States should allow the same principle to be applied to regulated retail roaming calls. Pursuant to Article 75(1) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972, the Commission has established, by means of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/654 (16), a single maximum Union-wide voice termination rate for mobile services in order to reduce the regulatory burden in addressing the competition problems relating to wholesale voice termination consistently across the Union. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/654 includes a three-year glide path: the single maximum Union-wide mobile voice termination rates is to be EUR 0,7 cent in 2021, EUR 0,55 cent in 2022, EUR 0,4 cent in 2023, reaching the single maximum Union-wide mobile voice termination rate of EUR 0,2 cent from 2024 onwards. In the situations set out in this Regulation where roaming providers are allowed to apply a surcharge to regulated retail roaming services, the surcharge applied to regulated roaming calls received should not exceed the single maximum Union-wide mobile voice termination rate set by the Commission for the relevant year in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/654. If the Commission subsequently concludes that it is no longer necessary to set a single maximum Union-wide mobile voice termination rate, any surcharge applied to regulated roaming calls received should not exceed the rate set by the latest delegated act adopted under Article 75 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972.

(34)

Where providers of Union-wide regulated roaming services make changes to their retail roaming tariffs and to accompanying roaming usage policies in order to comply with the requirements of this Regulation, such changes should not trigger for mobile customers any right under national laws transposing Directive (EU) 2018/1972 to withdraw from their retail contracts.

(35)

A retail contract which includes any type of regulated retail roaming service should specify, in a clear and comprehensible manner, the characteristics of that regulated retail roaming service, including the expected level of quality of service. Although roaming providers do not exercise control over visited networks, the roaming services provided are subject to the wholesale roaming agreement with the visited network operator. Therefore, in order to empower roaming customers, roaming providers should inform their customers in the retail contract, in a clear manner, how the quality of the roaming services can differ in practice from the services consumed domestically. Roaming providers should also explain, to the extent possible, how other relevant factors can affect the quality of service, such as the speed, latency and availability of roaming services or other services when roaming, due to availability of certain technologies, coverage or variation due to external factors such as topography. Such a retail contract should also include clear and comprehensible information about the complaints procedure that is available where the quality of service does not correspond to the terms of the retail contract. The roaming provider should handle any complaints in that regard in a timely and effective manner.

(36)

In order to ensure that roaming customers are adequately informed about the quality of their roaming service, roaming providers should publish the relevant information on their webpages. To that end, they should include information about reasons why a roaming service could be offered under conditions that are less advantageous than those offered domestically. That information should contain, in particular, a clear and comprehensible explanation of possible significant deviations from the advertised or estimated maximum upload and download speeds that are offered domestically, and how such deviations can impact the roaming service to which the customer subscribes. The information could also include a clear and comprehensible explanation as to how any volume limitations, speed, available network generations and technologies and other quality of service parameters may in practice have an impact on the data roaming service, and in particular on the use of content, applications and services when roaming.

(37)

Roaming customers and home operators sometimes unwittingly incur large bills as a result of the lack of transparency on the numbers used for value-added services across the Union and on the wholesale prices charged for value-added services, without prejudice to Article 97 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972. Communications to certain numbers which are used for providing value-added services, for example, premium-rate numbers, freephone numbers or shared cost numbers, are subject to particular pricing conditions at the national level. This Regulation should not apply to the part of the tariff that is charged for the provision of value-added services but only to the tariffs for the connection to such services. The RLAH principle might create an expectation for roaming customers that communications to such numbers while roaming should not incur any increased costs in comparison to the domestic situation. However, this is not always the case when roaming. Roaming customers are confronted with increased costs, even when they call numbers that are free when called domestically. This could erode customer confidence in using their phones when roaming and could result in ‘bill shock’, thus having a negative impact on a genuine RLAH experience. At retail level, this is mainly caused by the insufficient level of transparency regarding the higher charges which can be incurred for communications to numbers used for value-added services. Therefore, measures should be introduced to raise awareness of the risk of high bills and to increase transparency regarding the terms relating to communications to numbers for value-added services. To that end, roaming customers should be informed in their retail contract, and should be notified and warned, in a timely, user-friendly manner free of charge, that communications to numbers for value-added services in roaming can entail additional charges. The facility to deactivate third-party billing in Annex VI to Directive (EU) 2018/1972, if available, may be applied to roaming situations.

(38)

The functioning of wholesale roaming markets should allow operators to recover all the costs of providing regulated wholesale roaming services, including joint and common costs. The cost model relied upon for the purposes of the review process took into the utmost account investments made by operators in order to deliver mobile roaming services, such as the cost of spectrum, the cost of equipment and infrastructure investments, as well as the infrastructure deployed by operators and the technology that is expected to dominate consumption until the next review. The review planned for 2025 will rely on a new cost model, taking the utmost account of technological developments observed in the interim period. This should preserve incentives to invest in visited networks and avoid any distortion of domestic competition in the visited markets caused by regulatory arbitrage by operators using wholesale roaming access remedies to compete in domestic visited markets.

(39)

In light of the objectives of this Regulation to ensure continued competition and the protection of end-users, this Regulation should set wholesale roaming price caps that reflect developments in the operators’ costs of providing wholesale roaming services. The cost model used for the purposes of the review process and referred to in the impact assessment carried out for the purposes of this Regulation demonstrates that operators’ costs have been gradually decreasing and continue to decrease. Considering the expected timeline for the planned review of wholesale caps on the basis of the two reports to be submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council by 30 June 2025 and 30 June 2029, maximum wholesale charges should decrease on the basis of a glide path, taking into account relevant cost estimates and likely market developments in the period between 2022 and 2027.

(40)

The cost estimates for the provision of wholesale roaming services, including joint and common costs, have been assessed on the basis of several sources. One source was a general cost model for wholesale roaming services used for the purposes of the review process, which estimated the costs of an efficient operator when providing roaming wholesale services. The outcome of the cost model enables analysing costs, for each year in each Member State, under different scenarios and assumptions in the years in which it estimates costs. The cost model was populated with data submitted by the operators and was subsequently confirmed by the relevant national regulatory authorities. Seasonality was also taken into account for the Member States able to illustrate that it affected operators’ network dimensioning. Throughout the period in which the cost model was developed, operators, BEREC and national regulatory authorities were consulted. The cost assessment also drew on current wholesale roaming charges in the Union and took into account the anticipated future take-up of updated network technologies, in line with indications received from BEREC in its opinions.

(41)

With regard to rules on wholesale charges, regulatory obligations at Union level should be maintained since any measure that enables RLAH across the Union without addressing the level of the wholesale costs associated with providing wholesale roaming services could risk disrupting the internal market for roaming services and would not encourage more competition. Wholesale charges at an appropriate level should facilitate sustainable competition, including by new entrants, small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups.

(42)

Maximum wholesale charges should act as a safeguard level and should ensure that operators can recover their costs, including joint and common costs. They should also enable the widespread sustainable provision of RLAH, while at the same time leaving a margin for commercial negotiations between operators.

(43)

The practice by some mobile network operators of billing for the provision of wholesale roaming calls on the basis of minimum charging periods of up to 60 seconds, as opposed to the per-second basis normally applied for other wholesale interconnection charges, creates a distortion of competition between those operators and those applying different billing methods, and undermines the consistent application of the maximum wholesale charges laid down in this Regulation. Moreover it represents an additional charge which, by increasing wholesale costs, has negative consequences for the pricing of voice roaming services at retail level. Mobile network operators should therefore be required to bill for the wholesale provision of regulated roaming calls on a per-second basis.

(44)

To ensure that roaming customers have uninterrupted and effective access to emergency services free of charge, visited networks should not levy on the roaming providers any wholesale charges related to any type of emergency communications.

(45)

In order to improve the transparency of retail prices for roaming services and to help roaming customers make decisions on the use of their mobile devices while abroad, providers of mobile communication services should supply their roaming customers with information free of charge about the roaming charges applicable to them when using roaming services in a visited Member State. Since certain customer groups might be well informed about roaming charges, roaming providers should provide a possibility to easily opt-out from that automatic message. In addition, roaming customers should be provided with a text message including a link to access, free of charge, a webpage established by the roaming provider giving detailed information about the types of services, namely calls and SMS messages, that may be subject to increased costs, without prejudice to Article 97 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972. Roaming customers should be fully informed, in a clear manner, of any charges applicable to freephone numbers while roaming. Moreover, roaming providers should actively give their customers, provided that the latter are located in the Union, on request and free of charge, additional information on the per-minute, per-SMS message or per-megabyte data charges, including VAT, for the making or receiving of voice calls and for the sending and receiving of SMS messages, MMS messages and other data communication services in the visited Member State.

(46)

A roaming customer can connect to a non-terrestrial public mobile communications network, such as on board marine vessels (MCV services) as defined in Commission Decision 2010/166/EU (17) or on aircraft (MCA services) as defined in Commission Decision 2008/294/EC (18), that are provided through types of radio networks other than terrestrial networks, by means of specific devices mounted on board. Those services are often accessible on international waters or on board aircraft. Charges incurred by roaming customers when they intentionally or inadvertently connect to non-terrestrial networks are significantly higher than tariffs for regulated roaming services. Roaming customers are accustomed to benefiting from RLAH and the use of roaming services at domestic prices. Due to the absence of a consistent approach to transparency and safeguard measures for connections to non-terrestrial networks, roaming customers are at greater risk of bill-shock. Therefore, additional transparency and safeguard measures should be introduced to apply to connections to non-terrestrial networks such as on marine vessels and aircraft.

Roaming providers should take reasonable steps to apply such transparency and safeguard measures. Such steps could include network operation measures, financial limits, an opt-out mechanism, or equivalent measures. They should, in particular, include measures to ensure that adequate information is provided in a clear and comprehensible manner, in order to empower roaming customers to actively prevent such instances of inadvertent roaming. Roaming providers that offer an opt-out mechanism should inform roaming customers about the limitations of the instant opt-in or reactivation of the service, such as the risk that without their connection to the network they will be unable to reactivate connection to a non-terrestrial network. Roaming providers should inform their roaming customers about the possibility of manually and instantly opting out of roaming on their handset device, either through the settings or by activating flight mode. To the extent possible, when planning and operating their networks, roaming providers should aim to prioritise connections to terrestrial networks to minimise the risk of inadvertent connection to non-terrestrial networks. In order to ensure a high level of protection for roaming customers, when connecting to non-terrestrial public mobile communications networks, providers of mobile communication services should provide their roaming customers with information about any additional charges that apply, by way of a text message free of charge every time a connection to such a network is established.

(47)

This Regulation should in relation to regulated retail roaming services lay down specific transparency requirements aligned with the specific tariff and volume conditions applicable following the abolition of the retail roaming surcharges. In particular, provision should be made for roaming customers to be notified, in a timely and user-friendly manner and free of charge, of the applicable fair use policy, when the applicable fair use volume of regulated voice, SMS or data roaming services is fully consumed, of any surcharge, and of accumulated consumption of regulated data roaming services.

(48)

Customers living in border regions should not receive unnecessarily high bills due to inadvertent roaming. Roaming providers should therefore take all reasonable steps to minimise the risk of inadvertent roaming and to protect customers against incurring roaming charges while they are located in their Member State. Such steps should include financial limits, mechanisms to opt out of roaming on a network outside the Union where technically feasible, or equivalent measures. Such steps should in particular include adequate measures for the provision of information in a clear and comprehensible manner in order to empower customers to actively prevent such instances of inadvertent roaming. National regulatory authorities and other competent authorities responsible for safeguarding and promoting the interests of customers who normally reside within their territory should be alert to situations in which customers face problems with paying roaming charges while they are still located in their Member State and should take appropriate steps to mitigate the problem.

(49)

Moreover, measures should be laid down to ensure the transparency of retail charges for all data roaming services, including for connecting to non-terrestrial public mobile communications networks, in particular to eliminate the problem of bill shock, which constitutes a barrier to the smooth functioning of the internal market, and to provide roaming customers with the tools they need to monitor and control their expenditure on data roaming services. Equally, there should be no obstacles to the emergence of applications or technologies which can be a substitute for, or alternative to, roaming services, including but not limited to Wi-Fi.

(50)

In addition, in order to avoid bill shocks, roaming providers should establish one or more maximum financial or volume limits for their outstanding charges for all data roaming services, expressed in the currency in which the roaming customer is billed, which they should offer to all their roaming customers, free of charge, with an appropriate notification, in a media format that can be consulted again subsequently, when that limit is being approached. Upon reaching that maximum limit, customers should no longer receive or be charged for those services unless they specifically request continued provision of those services in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the notification. In such a case, they should receive free confirmation, in a media format that can be consulted again subsequently. Roaming customers should be given the opportunity to opt out of those maximum financial or volume limits within a reasonable period or to choose not to have such a limit. Unless customers state otherwise, they should be put on a default limit system.

(51)

These transparency measures should be seen as minimum safeguards for roaming customers, and should not preclude roaming providers from offering their customers a range of other facilities which help them to predict and control their expenditure on data roaming services.

(52)

Customers under pre-paid tariffs may also suffer from bill shocks for the use of data roaming services. For that reason provisions on cut-off limit should also apply to those customers.

(53)

Consumers do not always distinguish between access to electronic communications services while roaming, namely where end-users access such services in visited Member States, and intra-EU communications, namely where consumers located in their home Member State make calls or send SMS messages to another Member State. While roaming and intra-EU communications constitute two distinct and separate markets, certain parallels can be drawn between them from a consumer perspective. Since 15 May 2019, the retail price, excluding VAT, that can be charged to consumers for regulated intra-EU communications has been capped at EUR 0,19 per minute for calls and EUR 0,06 per SMS message. With the prolongation of the RLAH measures introduced by this Regulation, which address the risk of discouraging cross-border communication and enabling the establishment of an internal market, it should be considered appropriate to look into the development of the intra-EU communications market. To that end, the existing measures should be evaluated in light of the application of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 and, in particular, the rules on interpersonal communication services, and the introduction of single maximum Union-wide voice termination rates, which is a component of the cost structure of intra-EU communications. The Commission, with the support of BEREC, should assess the effects of the existing measures introduced by Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (19) and determine whether and to what extent there is an ongoing need to reduce the caps in order to protect consumers. That assessment should take place at least one year before the expiry of those measures on 14 May 2024.

(54)

There are considerable disparities between regulated roaming tariffs within the Union and roaming tariffs incurred by customers when they are travelling outside the Union, which are significantly higher than prices within the Union, where roaming surcharges are only exceptionally applied following the abolition of retail roaming charges. Due to the absence of a consistent approach to transparency and safeguard measures concerning roaming outside the Union, consumers are not confident about their rights and are therefore often deterred from using mobile services while abroad. Transparent information provided to consumers could not only assist them in the decision as to how to use their mobile devices while travelling abroad (both within and outside the Union), but could also assist them in the choice between roaming providers. It is therefore necessary to address the problem of the lack of transparency and consumer protection by applying certain transparency and safeguard measures also to roaming services provided outside the Union. Those measures should facilitate competition and improve the functioning of the internal market.

(55)

Union citizens face high roaming charges when using retail roaming services in third countries. Therefore, initiatives that aim to lower the roaming charges for roaming services between the Union and third countries on a reciprocal basis should be encouraged. In particular, end-users in the Union external border regions would greatly benefit from lower roaming charges with the neighbouring third countries.

(56)

If the visited network operator in the visited third country does not allow the roaming provider to monitor its customers’ usage on a real-time basis, the roaming provider should not be obliged to provide the maximum financial or volume limits for safeguarding customers.

(57)

Roaming providers should inform roaming customers of the possibility of accessing emergency services free of charge by calling the single European emergency number ‘112’ and should inform roaming customers of alternative means of access through emergency communications that are technically feasible for use by roaming customers, in particular by roaming customers with disabilities. Alternative means of access through emergency communications enable roaming customers, in particular roaming customers with disabilities, to access emergency services through means other than calls. For example, alternative means of access may be ensured through emergency applications, messaging, relay services or real time text or total conversation implemented pursuant to Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/882. The information on the means of access should be provided by an SMS message which informs the roaming customer of the possibility of accessing emergency services free of charge by calling the single European emergency number ‘112’ and which provides a link to a dedicated webpage, that can be accessed free of charge and complies with Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council (20), describing, in an easily understandable way, the alternative means of access to emergency services in the visited Member State and indicating only those means of access that are technically feasible for use by roaming customers. The dedicated webpage should contain information in the language in which the roaming provider communicates with the roaming customer.

(58)

Article 110 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 requires Member States to ensure that their public warning systems transmit public warnings to end-users concerned, namely end-users who are located in the geographic areas potentially being affected by imminent or developing major emergencies and disasters during the warning period, including roaming end-users. Currently available technologies enable national authorities to send public warnings to concerned roaming customers without the need for prior action by the roaming customer, such as downloading an application. However, in some Member States, public warning mobile applications which allow sending rich information to end-users are deployed, sometimes in addition to the previously mentioned technologies. In the Member States where the link to such a national public warning mobile application is provided in the database of the means of access to emergency services that are mandated in each Member State established pursuant to this Regulation, roaming providers should inform roaming customers of the link to that application. The information should be provided in the language in which the roaming provider communicates with the roaming customer. With reference to the preamble to Directive (EU) 2018/1972, the Commission will assess possibilities for enabling roaming customers concerned to receive public warnings issued by the competent national authorities, including through a mobile application when travelling within the Union, through a Union-wide public warning system that complements national public warning systems.

(59)

Numbering ranges, including those used for value-added services, are set in the national numbering plans and are not harmonised at Union level. Operators may therefore not be able to recognise the numbering ranges for value-added services in all countries in advance. Numbering ranges used for value-added services are subject to particular pricing conditions at the national level, and in many cases their termination rates are not regulated. While this is understood by roaming providers, the level of the wholesale charges they will incur may still be unexpectedly high. In a roaming scenario, operators are unable to address this issue because they lack information on numbering ranges used for value-added services throughout the Union. To address this problem, BEREC should establish and maintain a single Union-wide, secure database of numbering ranges for value-added services. The database is intended to enhance transparency, enabling national regulatory authorities and, where applicable, other competent authorities, as well as operators, to have direct access to information about which numbering ranges can generate higher costs (termination rates) in all Member States. It represents a necessary intermediate step to increase transparency at retail level as it could be used to inform roaming customers about the types of services that may be subject to increased charges when roaming. With a view to providing better consumer protection and transparency, it should be possible for the database to contain additional information, for example about the tariffs associated with numbering ranges for value-added services, such as per minute or per act tariffs. Such tariff information could be made available on the dedicated webpage providing information about value-added services. BEREC should establish the procedures by which competent authorities are to provide and update the information in the database of numbering ranges for value-added services established pursuant to this Regulation.

(60)

BEREC should establish and maintain a single Union-wide database of means of access to emergency services that are mandated and are technically feasible to be used by roaming end-users in each Member State. The database is intended to help national operators, national regulatory authorities and, where applicable, other competent authorities to be informed of all these means of access to emergency services deployed in the Union. Member States should be able to update the database with the link to the national public warning mobile application, if applicable. BEREC should establish the procedures by which the competent authorities are to provide and update the information requested pursuant to this Regulation.

(61)

Where Member States assign to competent authorities other than national regulatory authorities some of the tasks related to end-user protection, for instance regarding information requirements for retail contracts, transparency, or contract termination, the competence of those competent authorities for those tasks covers all parts of the retail contract, including the roaming related rights and obligations. Without prejudice to the assignment of tasks under Directive (EU) 2018/1972, the national regulatory authorities and, where applicable, other competent authorities which are responsible for carrying out tasks under that Directive should have the powers needed to monitor, supervise and enforce the obligations under this Regulation within their territory. They should also monitor developments in the pricing of voice, SMS and data services for roaming customers within the Union including, where appropriate, the specific costs related to roaming calls made and received in the outermost regions of the Union and the need to ensure that these costs can be adequately recovered on the wholesale market, and that traffic-steering techniques are not used to limit choice to the detriment of customers. They should ensure that up-to-date information on the application of this Regulation is made available to interested parties and publish the results of such monitoring. Information should be provided on corporate, post-paid and pre-paid customers separately.

(62)

In-country roaming in the outermost regions of the Union, where mobile telephony licences are distinct from those issued in respect of the rest of the national territory, could benefit from rate reductions equivalent to those practised on the internal market for roaming services. The implementation of this Regulation should not give rise to less favourable pricing treatment for customers using in-country roaming services as opposed to customers using Union-wide roaming services. To that end, the national authorities may take additional measures consistent with Union law.

(63)

While ensuring business confidentiality and in order to monitor and supervise the application of this Regulation and developments in wholesale roaming markets, national regulatory authorities should be entitled to require information on wholesale roaming agreements that do not provide for the application of the maximum wholesale roaming charges. Those authorities should also be allowed to require information on the adoption and application of conditions in wholesale roaming agreements aiming to prevent permanent roaming and any anomalous or abusive use of wholesale roaming access for purposes other than the provision of regulated roaming services to roaming providers’ customers travelling within the Union.

(64)

Where Union providers of mobile services find the benefits of interoperability and end-to-end connectivity for their customers jeopardised by the termination, or threat of termination, of their roaming arrangements with mobile network operators in another Member State or where they are unable to provide their customers with services in another Member State as a result of a lack of agreement with at least one wholesale network provider, national regulatory authorities, or other competent authorities in the situations referred to under Article 61(2), points (b) and (c) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972, should make use, where necessary, of the powers under Article 61 of that Directive to ensure adequate access and interconnection, taking into account the objectives set out in Article 3 of that Directive, in particular the development of the internal market by favouring the provision, availability and interoperability of pan-European services, and end-to-end connectivity.

(65)

The specific price regulation applicable to wholesale roaming services entails that an overall Union cap applies to a composite product which may also include other wholesale roaming access and interconnection inputs, including, in particular, those subject to national or, potentially, cross-border regulation. In this regard divergences across the Union in the regulation of those inputs are predicted to decrease, in particular because of additional measures taken in accordance with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 aiming to ensure greater consistency of regulatory approaches. In the meantime, any dispute between visited network operators and other operators on the rates applied to those regulated inputs necessary for the provision of wholesale roaming services should be addressed, taking into account BEREC’s opinion, where it has been consulted, in accordance with the specific regulatory obligations applicable to roaming as well as with Directive (EU) 2018/1972.

(66)

It is necessary to monitor and to review regularly the functioning of wholesale roaming markets and their interrelationship with the retail roaming markets, taking into account competitive and technological developments and traffic flows. The Commission should submit two reports to the European Parliament and to the Council, followed, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal. In those reports, the Commission should, in particular, assess whether RLAH has any impact on the evolution of tariff plans available on the retail markets. That should include, on the one hand, an assessment of the emergence of any tariff plans that include only domestic services and that exclude retail roaming services altogether, thus undermining the very objective of RLAH and, on the other, an assessment of any reduction in the availability of flat-rate tariff plans, which could also represent a loss for consumers and undermine the objectives of the digital single market.

The Commission’s reports should, in particular, analyse the extent to which exceptional retail roaming surcharges have been authorised by national regulatory authorities, the ability of home network operators to sustain their domestic charging models and the ability of visited network operators to recover the efficiently incurred costs of providing regulated wholesale roaming services. In addition, the Commission’s reports should assess: how, at wholesale level, access to the different network technologies and generations is ensured; the information about wholesale pricing for data services; the level of usage of trading platforms and similar instruments to trade traffic at wholesale level; the evolution of machine-to-machine roaming; persistent problems at retail level in relation to value-added services; the application of the measures on emergency communications; the transparency measures on roaming in third countries and non-terrestrial public mobile networks aiming to prevent inadvertent roaming; the effectiveness of the quality of service obligations laid down in this Regulation; and the extent to which customers are properly informed in their retail contracts about those obligations and can benefit from a genuine RLAH experience. Furthermore, the Commission’s reports should assess what impact the roll-out and implementation of new technologies, as well as pandemics and natural disasters, have on the roaming market. In order to enable such reporting with a view to assessing how the roaming markets adapt to RLAH rules, sufficient data should be gathered on the functioning of those markets after the implementation of those rules.

(67)

In order to assess competitive developments in Union-wide roaming markets and to report regularly on changes in actual wholesale roaming charges for unbalanced traffic between providers of roaming services, BEREC should continue to collect data from national regulatory authorities. Where applicable, national regulatory authorities should be able to coordinate with other competent authorities. Such data should include the actual charges applied for balanced and unbalanced traffic, respectively, together with actual traffic volumes for the relevant roaming services. The collection of data that allows the monitoring and assessment of the impact of changes in travel behaviour and consumption patterns, such as changes caused by pandemics, is vital for the analysis required in the reports provided for by this Regulation. BEREC should also collect data on cases where parties to a wholesale roaming agreement have opted out of the application of maximum wholesale roaming charges or have implemented measures at wholesale level that aim to prevent permanent roaming or anomalous or abusive use of wholesale roaming access for purposes other than the provision of regulated roaming services to roaming providers’ customers while the latter are periodically travelling within the Union. On the basis of the data collected with sufficient level of granularity, BEREC should report regularly on the relationship between retail prices, wholesale charges and wholesale costs for roaming services. By 30 June 2027, the Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, based on the regular BEREC reports, followed, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal. BEREC should also collect the necessary data to allow the monitoring of the elements to be assessed by the Commission in the reports provided in this Regulation.

(68)

In the medium term, facilitating machine-to-machine roaming and internet-of-things (IoT) roaming should be recognised as an important driver for digitising the Union’s industry and should build on related Union policies in sectors such as health, energy, environment, and transport. The Commission should regularly assess the role of roaming in the market for machine-to-machine connectivity and in the IoT market. If appropriate, the Commission should also provide recommendations, after consulting BEREC. BEREC should also collect the necessary data to allow the monitoring of the elements to be assessed in the Commission’s reports on the development of machine-to-machine roaming and IoT devices provided for in this Regulation, taking into account cellular connectivity solutions based on unlicensed spectrum.

(69)

The Commission, BEREC, the national regulatory authorities and, where applicable, other competent authorities concerned should fully ensure business confidentiality when sharing information for the purposes of reviewing, monitoring and supervising the application of this Regulation. Compliance with business confidentiality requirements should therefore not prevent national regulatory authorities from being able to share in a timely manner confidential information for such purposes.

(70)

Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to provide for a common approach for ensuring that users of public mobile communications networks, when travelling within the Union, do not pay excessive prices for Union-wide roaming services in comparison with competitive national prices, and to increase transparency and consumer protection, as well as to ensure the sustainability of the provision of retail roaming services at domestic prices and a genuine RLAH experience in terms of quality of service and access to emergency services while roaming, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(71)

This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(72)

The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (21), and delivered an opinion on 20 April 2021,

(1)

The recent military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the ongoing armed conflict has fundamentally changed the security situation in Europe. As a result of that military aggression, the Union, and its eastern regions in particular, is facing a substantial inflow of persons. This poses an additional challenge for public budgets at a time when Member States’ economies are still recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and risks undermining the preparation of a green, digital and resilient recovery of the economy.

(2)

Member States are already able to finance a broad range of investments to address migratory challenges under their operational programmes with support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD), including from the additional resources made available as Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU), to provide assistance for fostering crisis repair in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social consequences and for preparing a green, digital and resilient recovery of the economy.

(3)

Furthermore, Regulation (EU) 2022/562 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) made a number of targeted amendments to Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 (3) and (EU) No 223/2014 (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council in order to make it easier for Member States to use their remaining ERDF, ESF and FEAD allocations under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework, as well as to use REACT-EU resources, to address the migratory challenges as effectively and as rapidly as possible.

(4)

Notwithstanding the flexibilities offered by Regulation (EU) 2022/562, Member States continue to face substantial pressure on public budgets from challenges deriving from the very high numbers of arrivals of persons fleeing Ukraine. That pressure risks undermining Member States’ capacity to move towards a resilient recovery of the economy from the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to assist Member States in addressing the migratory challenges, support from the ERDF, ESF and FEAD should therefore be mobilised quickly by increasing the rate of initial pre-financing paid from REACT-EU resources for all Member States. At the same time, some Member States have been confronted with significant numbers of persons arriving from Ukraine, requiring the provision of immediate support. Those Member States should accordingly benefit from a significantly higher increase of the rate of initial pre-financing to offset the immediate budgetary costs and support their efforts in preparing the recovery of their economies.

(5)

In order to monitor the use made of that additional pre-financing, the final reports on the implementation of ERDF and ESF programmes receiving additional pre-financing should include information on the use made of the additional amounts received to address the migratory challenges faced as a result of the military aggression by the Russian Federation, and how those additional amounts contributed to the recovery of the economy.

(6)

A unit cost should be established, in order to simplify the use of the European Structural and Investment Funds and to reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries and Member State administrations in the context of addressing migratory challenges resulting from the military aggression by the Russian Federation. The unit cost should facilitate, in all Member States, the financing of basic needs and the support of persons granted temporary protection or other adequate protection under national law in accordance with Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 (5) and Council Directive 2001/55/EC (6), for a period of 13 weeks from the person’s arrival in the Union. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/562 Member States could also apply a unit cost when making use of the possibility provided for in Article 98(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 to finance operations addressing migratory challenges by either the ERDF or the ESF on the basis of the rules applicable to the other Fund, including when that involves REACT-EU resources. In making use of the unit cost, Member States should ensure that they have the necessary arrangements in place to avoid double financing of the same costs.

(7)

Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to assist Member States in addressing the challenges created by the exceptionally high arrivals of persons fleeing the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and to support Member States’ move towards a resilient recovery of the economy from the COVID-19 pandemic, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

(8)

Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 223/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

In view of the urgency of providing rapid relief to public budgets with a view to preserving Member States’ capacity to support the recovery of economies from the COVID-19 pandemic and to enable additional payments to operational programmes without delay, it is considered to be appropriate to invoke the exception to the 8-week period provided for in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, annexed to the TEU, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

(10)

In view of the need to provide rapid relief to public budgets with the aim of preserving Member States’ capacity to sustain the economic recovery process and to enable additional payments to be made to operational programmes without delay, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius (1) (‘the Agreement’) was approved on behalf of the Union by means of Council Decision 2014/146/EU (2) and entered into force on 28 January 2014.

(2)

The application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius (3) (‘the Protocol’) started on 8 December 2017 for a period of 4 years. The Protocol expired on 7 December 2021.

(3)

On 28 September 2021 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the Republic of Mauritius for the conclusion of a new protocol implementing the Agreement.

(4)

Pending the completion of the negotiations on the renewal of the Protocol, the Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the extension of the Protocol for a maximum period of 6 months. The negotiations on the extension of the Protocol were concluded successfully, and the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius concerning the extension of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius (‘the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters’) was initialled on 6 December 2021.

(5)

The objectives of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters are to enable the Union and the Republic of Mauritius to continue working together to promote a sustainable fisheries policy and the sound exploitation of fisheries resources in Mauritius waters and to allow Union vessels to carry out their fishing activities in those waters.

(6)

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters should be signed, subject to its conclusion at a later date.

(7)

To limit the interruption of the fishing activity of Union vessels in Mauritius waters, the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters should be applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures necessary for its entry into force,

(1)

As from 1 January 2022, or any other subsequent date upon the signing of this Exchange of Letters, the arrangements in force during the final year of the Protocol shall be renewed under the same conditions until a new protocol is agreed to and becomes applicable, but for a maximum period of six months.

(2)

The financial contribution of the European Union for vessels to have access to Mauritius waters under this Exchange of Letters shall correspond to half of the annual amount provided for under Article 4(2), point (a), of the Protocol, thus amounting to EUR 110 000, equivalent to a reference tonnage of 2 000 tonnes. That payment shall be made in one single instalment no later than three months after the date on which this Exchange of Letters is provisionally applied. Article 4(5) and (6) of the Protocol shall apply mutatis mutandis.

(3)

Under this Exchange of Letters, the support for Mauritius's sectoral fisheries policy shall amount to EUR 110 000 and support for the development of maritime policy and ocean economy shall amount to EUR 67 500. The Joint Committee provided for under Article 9 of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement shall approve the programming for this amount in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Protocol no later than three months after the date of application of this Exchange of Letters. The financial contribution for the sectoral support shall be paid in one single instalment on the basis of the agreed programming.

(4)

In the event that the negotiations to renew the Protocol result in a new protocol being signed and subsequently being (provisionally) applied prior to the expiry of the six-month period provided for under point (1) above, the financial contribution referred to in points (2) and (3) above shall be reduced pro rata temporis. Where an amount corresponding to the reduction applicable has already been paid, that amount shall be deducted from the first financial contribution due under the new Protocol.

(5)

During the application period of this Exchange of Letters, fishing authorisations shall be issued in accordance with Chapter II of the Annex to the Protocol. The advance payment fee for purse-seine vessels and longline vessels shall correspond to half of the fees set in, and to half of the respective quantities of tuna and tuna-like species referred to in, Chapter II, point 3, subpoint 3(a) to (c), of the Annex to the Protocol for the last year of application of the Protocol. The licence fee applicable to supply vessels shall correspond to half of the fee provided for in Chapter II, point (4), of the Annex to the Protocol, and shall consequently amount to EUR 2 000.

(6)

The fishing authorisations issued under this Exchange of Letters shall be valid until the end of the extension period.

(7)

As regards catch reporting laid down in Chapter III of the Annex to the Protocol, the Union shall provide Mauritius, before the end of each trimester, with catch data for each authorised Union vessel. Mauritius shall provide, on a trimestral basis, catch data of authorised Union vessels obtained through logbooks.

(8)

For each purse seiner and surface longliner, the Union shall send a final statement of the fees owed by the vessel in respect of its fishing activities during the extension period to Mauritius and to the respective shipowner no later than three months after the end of the extension period. Where the amount in the final statement is greater than the advance payment fee referred to in point (5), the shipowner shall pay the outstanding balance, no later than three months after the receipt of the final statement. Any amount paid for the advance payment fee exceeding the final statement shall not be reimbursed. As regards the drawing-up, the procedure to be followed by Mauritius upon the receipt and the contestation of the final statement, Chapter III, point (5), shall apply mutandis mutatis.

(9)

As regards the embarkation of seamen, as provided for in Chapter VIII of the Annex to the Protocol, during their activities in Mauritius waters, six Mauritian qualified seamen shall embark the Union fleet.

(10)

This Exchange of Letters shall apply provisionally as from 1 January 2022, or any other subsequent date upon it being signed, pending its entry into force. It will enter into force on the date on which the Parties notify each other that they have completed the procedures necessary for that purpose.

(1)

As from 1 January 2022, or any other subsequent date upon the signing of this Exchange of Letters, the arrangements in force during the final year of the Protocol shall be renewed under the same conditions until a new protocol is agreed to and becomes applicable, but for a maximum period of six months.

(2)

The financial contribution of the European Union for vessels to have access to Mauritius waters under this Exchange of Letters shall correspond to half of the annual amount provided for under Article 4(2), point (a), of the Protocol, thus amounting to EUR 110 000, equivalent to a reference tonnage of 2 000 tonnes. That payment shall be made in one single instalment no later than three months after the date on which this Exchange of Letters is provisionally applied. Article 4(5) and (6) of the Protocol shall apply mutatis mutandis.

(3)

Under this Exchange of Letters, the support for Mauritius's sectoral fisheries policy shall amount to EUR 110 000 and support for the development of maritime policy and ocean economy shall amount to EUR 67 500. The Joint Committee provided for under Article 9 of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement shall approve the programming for this amount in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Protocol no later than three months after the date of application of this Exchange of Letters. The financial contribution for the sectoral support shall be paid in one single instalment on the basis of the agreed programming.

(4)

In the event that the negotiations to renew the Protocol result in a new protocol being signed and subsequently being (provisionally) applied prior to the expiry of the six-month period provided for under point (1) above, the financial contribution referred to in points (2) and (3) above shall be reduced pro rata temporis. Where an amount corresponding to the reduction applicable has already been paid, that amount shall be deducted from the first financial contribution due under the new Protocol.

(5)

During the application period of this Exchange of Letters, fishing authorisations shall be issued in accordance with Chapter II of the Annex to the Protocol. The advance payment fee for purse-seine vessels and longline vessels shall correspond to half of the fees set in, and to half of the respective quantities of tuna and tuna-like species referred to in, Chapter II, point 3, subpoint 3(a) to (c), of the Annex to the Protocol for the last year of application of the Protocol. The licence fee applicable to supply vessels shall correspond to half of the fee provided for in Chapter II, point (4), of the Annex to the Protocol, and shall consequently amount to EUR 2 000.

(6)

The fishing authorisations issued under this Exchange of Letters shall be valid until the end of the extension period.

(7)

As regards catch reporting laid down in Chapter III of the Annex to the Protocol, the Union shall provide Mauritius, before the end of each trimester, with catch data for each authorised Union vessel. Mauritius shall provide, on a trimestral basis, catch data of authorised Union vessels obtained through logbooks.

(8)

For each purse seiner and surface longliner, the Union shall send a final statement of the fees owed by the vessel in respect of its fishing activities during the extension period to Mauritius and to the respective shipowner no later than three months after the end of the extension period. Where the amount in the final statement is greater than the advance payment fee referred to in point (5), the shipowner shall pay the outstanding balance, no later than three months after the receipt of the final statement. Any amount paid for the advance payment fee exceeding the final statement shall not be reimbursed. As regards the drawing-up, the procedure to be followed by Mauritius upon the receipt and the contestation of the final statement, Chapter III, point (5), shall apply mutandis mutatis.

(9)

As regards the embarkation of seamen, as provided for in Chapter VIII of the Annex to the Protocol, during their activities in Mauritius waters, six Mauritian qualified seamen shall embark the Union fleet.

(10)

This Exchange of Letters shall apply provisionally as from 1 January 2022, or any other subsequent date upon it being signed, pending its entry into force. It will enter into force on the date on which the Parties notify each other that they have completed the procedures necessary for that purpose.

(1)

While Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 (2) has provided a solid and stable anchor for the financing mechanics of the Union, the provisions on the making available of own resources need to be improved to enhance its predictability for Member States and to clarify procedures for dispute resolution.

(2)

Currently, only Member States manage own resources accounts opened in the name of the Commission. A reduction in the number of bank accounts used for collection of own resources would be more efficient and allow for a common approach to cash management. In order to modernise the management of own resources accounts, the Commission should be able to establish a centralised own resources account. It should be possible for Member States to choose whether to use that centralised own resources account or an account opened in the name of the Commission with their treasury or national central bank. In order to enable Member States to make an informed choice, the Commission should produce a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the use of the centralised own resources account.

(3)

Currently, Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 does not allow Member States to make advance payments. However, in the past some Member States have paid their national contributions in advance following agreement by the Commission. In the interest of legal certainty, that Regulation should provide that Member States have the possibility to make advance payments on a case-by-case basis, provided they inform the Commission in advance. For reasons of fairness, where a Member State avails itself of that possibility, the other Member States should not bear any costs related to the advanced payment, such as negative interest.

(4)

The date of payment by the Member States of the adjustments to the VAT and GNI-based own resources of previous financial years should be moved to March of the following year to enhance predictability for the national budgetary procedures. The date of payment by the Member States of adjustments should also apply to amounts for which information has been provided by the Commission before the entry into force of this Regulation.

(5)

To provide a stable budget that is necessary to finance the policy objectives of the Union, the procedure for calculating interest should ensure in particular that own resources are made available in a timely manner and in full.

(6)

The current threshold below which interest amounts are waived needs to be adapted. It is therefore necessary to increase the amount for which the recovery of interest is waived to improve the cost-effectiveness of the recovery procedures.

(7)

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 limits the increase in interest above the base rate to 16 percentage points. However, this ‘capping’ at 16 percentage points only applies to cases that became known after the entry into force of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/804 (3). Consequently, cases already known before the entry into force of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/804, where particularly high amounts of interest are at stake, cannot benefit from that limit regardless of whether the amount of interest has already been notified to the Member States. In those cases, Member States are still required to pay amounts of interest that are disproportionate compared to the amount of the principal due. In order to ensure the proportionality of the system while maintaining the deterrent effect, the increase in interest above the base rate should be further limited to 14 percentage points. In order to clarify and simplify the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014, the limitation of the increase to 14 percentage points should be applied to any amount of interest not communicated to the Member State before the entry into force of this Regulation.

(8)

Under the current legal framework, the practice has demonstrated that it can be difficult to identify the starting date of late payment interest due to the difficulty in identifying the exact point in time at which recovery efforts can be deemed to have been insufficient. For the purposes of simplification, there should be a ‘grace period’ of 5 years following the date of establishment of the amount, under the condition that the amount has been established, entered in a timely manner in the separate accounts and kept in the separate accounts in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014. Accordingly, the interest should only start running after 5 years, while the liability for the principal amount should be maintained.

(9)

In order to ensure the fair treatment of cases where amounts corresponding to established entitlements of traditional own resources prove irrecoverable, Member States should be released from the obligation to place at the disposal of the Commission the amounts corresponding to established entitlements of traditional own resources, where the Member State can prove that an error committed by the Member State after the establishment of the entitlements had no influence on the irrecoverability of the amount corresponding to those entitlements. Examples of such an error could include a belated entry in the separate accounts or shortcomings in the recovery procedure.

(10)

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 contains only one deadline, requiring the Commission to communicate its comments on the write off cases reported to the Commission to the Member State concerned within 6 months from the receipt of the report by that Member State. In order to conduct the follow-up of write-off reports in a timely and more flexible manner and to support a swift and fully transparent assessment of the Member State’s decision not to make the irrecoverable amount of traditional own resources available, procedural deadlines for the Commission and Member States should be adjusted.

(11)

In order to allow for the interruption of the period for which interest accrues, in the case of a disagreement between the Members States and the Commission, provisions should be introduced to reflect the current practice of the payment under reservation concerning amounts of own resources due to the budget of the Union, which opens the possibility to initiate an action for unjust enrichment against the Commission in accordance with Article 268 and Article 340, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union (TFEU).

(12)

In the case of a disagreement between Member States and the Commission regarding the making available of traditional own resources, a review procedure should be provided for in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 to improve transparency and to clarify Member States’ rights of defence. At the request of the Member State concerned, the outcome of the review procedure, as well as the state of play of pending cases, should be discussed with the Commission at a yearly meeting to be organised. That meeting should be held at an appropriate level of managerial representation with a view to reconsidering the respective positions and to striving to prevent the recourse to possible infringement proceedings, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice.

(13)

The Commission should review the functioning of the review procedure in the framework of a possible revision of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 or by the end of 2026 at the latest and, in particular, assess opportunities to streamline the review procedure, which, if appropriate, may be concluded by a Commission decision.

(14)

Articles 6 and 10a of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 should be adapted to delete the reference to the correction granted to the United Kingdom and to include Germany as beneficiary of lump-sum corrections in line with Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 (4).

(15)

In line with the principles of better regulation, the parallel existence of several making available regulations should be only temporary and such legal acts should be merged into one single regulation as soon as possible.

(16)

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission examined Spain’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Carne de Ávila’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2012 (3).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (2) sets maximum levels for certain contaminants, including mercury, in foodstuffs.

(2)

On 22 November 2012, the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) adopted an opinion on mercury and methylmercury in food (3). In that opinion, the Authority established a tolerable weekly intake (‘TWI’) for inorganic mercury of 4 μg/kg body weight (‘b.w.’) and for methylmercury of 1,3 μg/kg b.w. (both expressed as mercury) and concluded that the 95th percentile dietary exposure is close to or above the TWI for all age groups. High fish consumers, which might include pregnant women, may exceed the TWI by up to approximately six-fold. Unborn children constitute the most vulnerable group. The opinion concluded that exposure to methylmercury above the TWI is of concern, but advised taking into account the beneficial effects of fish consumption, if measures to reduce methylmercury exposure were considered.

(3)

On 27 June 2014, the Authority adopted an opinion on the health benefits of seafood consumption in relation to the health risks associated with exposure to methylmercury (4). In that opinion, the Authority reviewed the role of seafood in European diets and evaluated the beneficial effects of seafood consumption in relation to health outcomes, including the effects of seafood consumption during pregnancy on functional outcomes of children’s neurodevelopment and the effects of seafood consumption on cardiovascular disease risk in adults. The Authority concluded that consumption of about 1 to 2 servings of seafood per week and up to 3 to 4 servings per week during pregnancy has been associated with better functional outcomes of neurodevelopment in children compared to no consumption of seafood. Such amounts have also been associated with a lower coronary heart disease mortality in adults.

(4)

On 19 December 2014, the Authority adopted a statement on the benefits of fish/seafood consumption compared to the risks of methylmercury in fish/seafood (5), where it concluded that, to achieve the benefits of fish consumption associated with 1 to 4 fish servings per week and to protect against neurodevelopmental toxicity of methylmercury, the consumption of fish/seafood species with a high content of mercury should be limited.

(5)

Taking into account the outcome of the Authority’s scientific opinions and statement, the maximum levels for mercury should be reviewed, to reduce further the dietary exposure to mercury in food.

(6)

As recent occurrence data show that there would be a margin to lower the maximum levels for mercury in various fish species, the maximum levels for those fish species should be modified accordingly.

(7)

In view of the related health concerns, the level of mercury for shark and swordfish should be maintained at the current level, pending further data collection, scientific assessment and knowledge on the effectiveness of consumption advice in reducing the exposure.

(8)

The Codex Alimentarius sets a maximum level of 0,1 mg/kg for mercury in salt (6). It is appropriate to set the same maximum level in the Union legislation.

(9)

Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(10)

Taking into account that certain foodstuffs covered by this Regulation have a long shelf life, it is appropriate to provide for a transitional period during which such foodstuffs not complying with the new maximum levels and lawfully placed on the market before the date of entry into force of this Regulation, may remain on the market.

(11)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

The French language version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1533 (3) contains an error in Article 1(2), first subparagraph, introductory sentence, that changes the scope.

(2)

The French language version of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1533 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

In October 2005, the Council imposed, by means of Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 (2) a definitive anti-dumping duty (‘the original Regulation’) on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid (‘TCCA’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’) and the United States of America (‘USA’). The anti-dumping duties against imports from the PRC ranged from 7,3 % to 40,5 % for individual companies whilst the country-wide duty was set at 42,6 %.

(2)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 855/2010 (3), the Council lowered the anti-dumping duty rate for one exporting producer from 14,1 % to 3,2 %.

(3)

Following an expiry review, the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping measures consisting of individual duties ranging from 3,2 % to 40,5 % with a residual duty of 42,6 % on imports of TCCA originating in the PRC by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1389/2011 (4).

(4)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 569/2014 (5), the Commission imposed an anti-dumping duty rate of 32,8 % for a new exporting producer. For another exporting producer, the Commission terminated the investigation by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/392 (6).

(5)

Following a second expiry review, pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping measures consisting of individual duties ranging from 3,2 % to 40,5 % with a residual duty of 42,6 % on imports of TCCA originating in the PRC by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2230 (7).

(6)

The Commission received three requests for a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. The requests were lodged by Hebei Xingfei Chemical Co., Ltd (Hebei Xingfei) on 13 July 2020, by Inner Mongolia Likang Bio-Tech Co., Ltd (Mongolia Likang) on 29 July 2019 and updated on 12 February 2021, and by Shandong Lantian Disinfection Technology Co., Ltd (Shandong Lantian) on 13 April 2021 (‘the applicants’) whose exports to the Union are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty of 42,6 %.

(7)

The applicants claimed that they did not export the TCCA to the Union during the period of investigation of the original investigation, i.e. from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 (‘IP’).

(8)

The applicants also claimed that they were not related to any of the exporting producers of TCCA, which are subject to the measures in force. Finally, the applicants claimed that they had exported TCCA to the Union after the end of the investigation period of the original investigation.

(9)

The Commission examined the evidence available and concluded that there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of ‘new exporter’ reviews pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. After the Union producers had been given an opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1209 (8), three reviews of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2230 with regard to the applicants.

(10)

The product under review is trichloroisocyanuric acid and preparations thereof, also referred to as ‘symclosene’ under the international non-proprietary name (INN), currently falling under CN codes ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 94 20 (TARIC codes 2933698070 and 3808942020) and originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’ or ‘TCCA’).

(11)

TCCA is a chemical product used as a broad-spectrum organic chlorine disinfectant and bleacher, in particular for disinfecting water in swimming pools and spas. Other uses include water treatment in septic tanks or cooling towers and cleansing of kitchen appliances. TCCA is sold in the form of powder, granules, tablets or chips. All forms of TCCA and preparations thereof share the same basic characteristics (disinfectant) and are therefore considered as a single product.

(12)

The Commission officially advised the applicants, the Union industry as well as the representatives of the exporting country, of the initiation of the reviews. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.

(13)

The Commission sent questionnaires to the three applicants. The questionnaires had also been made available online on the day of initiation.

(14)

In view of the outbreak of COVID-19 and the confinement measures put in place by various Member States as well as by various third countries, the Commission could not carry out verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation. The Commission instead crosschecked remotely all the information deemed necessary for its determinations in line with its Notice on the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations (9). The Commission carried out remote crosschecks (‘RCC’s’) with the three applicants and with a company in the analogue country:

(15)

The investigation covered the period from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2021 (‘review investigation period’).

(16)

On 25 February 2022 the Commission disclosed to interested parties its intention to terminate the review investigations without determining individual dumping margins for the applicants. Interested parties were given the opportunity to comment.

(17)

Following the disclosure, the applicants claimed that their rights of defence were infringed due to an inadequate disclosure. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Commission failed to disclose information concerning the normal value, which would allow the applicants to provide further comments to the Commission’s decision.

(18)

The Commission recalled that, according to Article 20(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission should disclose the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intends to take a decision. Given the findings of the investigations, information concerning the normal value was not an element on which the Commission had based its findings. Accordingly, disclosure of such information was not necessary to allow the applicants to exercise their procedural rights. The claims were therefore rejected.

(19)

Following disclosure the applicants requested and were granted a hearing with the Commission services. In addition, the applicants requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer that was held on 11 March 2022. The hearing officer found that the applicants’ procedural rights had been fully respected.

(20)

Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, the criteria to be met for a new exporting producer are the following:

(21)

The investigation confirmed that the three applicants had not exported the product concerned during the original investigation period and that they had started to export to the Union after that period.

(22)

The investigation also confirmed that the applicants were not related to any of the Chinese exporting producers subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned.

(23)

With regard to the criterion that the applicants had started exporting to the Union after the original investigation period, given that each applicant only had one single export transaction of a limited volume during the review investigation period (‘RIP’), the Commission examined whether that export transaction could be deemed sufficient to provide an accurate reflection of the applicants’ current and future export behaviour. Specifically, the Commission further analysed, for each applicant: the share of the exported quantity in relation to total exports and production; the sales prices to the EU in relation to its export prices to third countries; and, the sales prices to the EU in relation to the average prices of other Chinese exporting producers who exported significant volumes to the EU during the RIP.

(24)

For Hebei Xingfei the investigation found that during the investigation period, only one sales transaction to the EU was recorded, for a volume of 9 tonnes. This transaction represented, during the same period, 0,09 % of the total company production volume and 0,63 % of its total export volume.

(25)

As to prices, the investigation demonstrated that, for the grades of TCCA exported to the EU, the export price for the only transaction was 115 % to 140 % higher than Hebei Xingfei's average export price to non-EU countries during the RIP.

(26)

The Commission also compared the export prices to the EU between Hebei Xingfei and other Chinese exporting producers supplying the specific EU market (10) during the RIP. It was found that the price of Hebei Xingfei’s transaction at CIF level was 53 % higher than the average price of the other Chinese exports. After the addition of the applicable anti-dumping duty, the price of Hebei Xingfei’s transaction was 105 % higher.

(27)

For the above reasons, the sole export sales transaction of Hebei Xingfei to the EU during the RIP did was not considered sufficiently representative to provide an accurate reflection of Hebei Xingfei’s current and future export behaviour.

(28)

For Shandong Lantian the investigation found that during the investigation period, only one sales transaction to the EU was recorded, for a volume of 29 tonnes. This transaction represented, during the same period, 0,07 % of the total company production volume and 0,02 % of its total export volume.

(29)

As to prices, the investigation revealed that, for the grades of TCCA sold to the EU, the export price for the only transaction was 60 % to 86 % higher than Shandong Lantian’s average export price to non-EU countries during the RIP.

(30)

The Commission also compared the export prices to the EU between Shandong Lantian and other Chinese exporting producers supplying the specific EU market during the RIP. It was found that the price of Shandong Lantian’s transaction at CIF level was 43 % higher than the average price of the other Chinese exports. After the addition of the applicable anti-dumping duties, the price of Shandong Lantian’s transaction was 87 % higher.

(31)

For the above reasons, the sole export transaction of Shandong Lantian to the EU during the RIP, was not considered sufficiently representative to provide an accurate reflection of Shandong Lantian’s current and future export behaviour.

(32)

For Mongolia Likang the investigation found that during the investigation period, only one sales transaction to the EU was recorded, for a volume of 9 tonnes. This transaction represented, during the same period, 0,10 % of the total company productions volume and 0,71 % of its total export volume.

(33)

As to prices, the investigation showed that, for the grades of TCCA sold to the EU, the export price for the only transaction was around 50 % higher than Mongolia Likang’s average export prices to non-EU countries during the RIP.

(34)

The Commission also compared the export prices to the EU between Mongolia Likang and other Chinese exporting producers supplying the specific EU market during the RIP. It found that the price of Mongolia Likang’s transaction at CIF level was 11 % higher than the average price of the other Chinese exports. After the addition of the applicable anti-dumping duties, the price of Mongolia Likang’s transaction was 48 % higher.

(35)

For the above reasons, the sole export sales transaction of Mongolia Likang to the EU during the RIP, was not considered sufficiently representative to provide an accurate reflection of Mongolia Likang’s current and future export behaviour.

(36)

During the investigation, in response to inquiries by the Commission of why prices varied between export markets, the applicants pointed to differences in packaging, quality and a higher price premium they were able to obtain on the Union market. However, packaging and quality differences were accounted for by the product control number assigned to the products when compared to other export destinations. Moreover, comparisons with exports of other Chinese producers during the RIP demonstrated that the Union market did not attract a premium that was able to explain the observed price difference.

(37)

Following disclosure, the applicants claimed that the Commission’s findings were without legal basis as they were based on an assessment of representativity of the transactions that is not provided for in Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the applicants claimed that the Commission’s assessment with regard to transactions’ representativeness was inconsistent with WTO case law. They referred to DS295 Mexico – Antidumping Measures on Rice, in which the establishment of an additional requirement for the initiation of a review, i.e. a representative volume, was found inconsistent with Article 9.5 of the ADA. The same claim was submitted by a Union importer.

(38)

The Commission considered that the WTO Appellate Body’s findings in DS295 were not strictly relevant for the case at hand. This finding concerned different circumstances, notably whether a legal provision in the Mexican domestic law limiting the possibility to initiate a new exporter review by requiring the existence of minimum representative volumes was consistent with the antidumping agreement (ADA). In the case at hand, no such criterion had been applied by the Commission in order to decide to open the current exporter reviews.

(39)

Furthermore, with regards to the investigation stage, the Commission recalled that its decision to terminate the reviews was not based on a lack of representative volumes but on an assessment of whether the applicants’ export price, given the low volumes in only one sales transaction for each of the applicants, were sufficient to provide an accurate reflection of the exporters’ current and future export behaviour. As recalled in recital (23), each exporter only had a single export transaction throughout the RIP, and this caused the Commission to perform an in-depth analysis concerning the appropriateness of the price of that single export transaction. This is because, in contrast to an original investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the Basic Regulation, in the context of a review investigation, and in particular in the context of a new exporter review, it is the exporter that requests the review to be initiated on the basis of transactions which it is aware will normally be used as a basis for the dumping margin calculation. Moreover, the Commission recalls that it is obliged to ensure the effectiveness of the duties in force in order to not frustrate the objective of the Basic Regulation to provide relief to the Union industry by offsetting the injurious effects of imports that had found to be dumped during the original investigation period. On that basis, the presence of only a single transaction during the RIP in the context of a review investigation requires additional assurances that such an export price is sufficient to make a reasonably accurate finding of dumping, which would avoid the risk that the existing duties being undermined. Consequently, the Commission decided to look into and examine all the relevant evidence received from the applicants, including prices to other export markets and the explanations given for the apparent deviation with regard to EU market prices of those single transactions. As a result of that examination, for reasons that have been outlined, the Commission considered that the export prices of the three exporters’ respective transactions were not appropriate to make a reasonably accurate finding of dumping. Therefore, on the basis of all the evidence collected during the investigation and in order to ensure the effectiveness of the duties in force, the Commission determined that the application of the residual duty as regards the applicants was appropriate in this case. The claims were therefore rejected.

(40)

Following disclosure, the applicants further disagreed with the Commission’s view that quality differences were accounted for by the so-called product control numbers, which were used in the questionnaires, and thus the applicants claimed that the price comparisons made between the applicants’ export prices and other Chinese exporters’ price were irrelevant.

(41)

The Commission recalled that the product control numbers used in the case were the same that were used in the original investigation, as well as in all subsequent investigations concerning this product. The Commission noted that product control numbers classify the different types of product falling under the definition of the product concerned based on the different technical characteristics. This classification allows the comparison of like with like, since products are compared according to their similar distinctive characteristics. The applicants did not substantiate that the alleged quality differences were taken into consideration when prices were set and thereby affected price comparability. The claims were therefore rejected.

(42)

Following disclosure, the applicants claimed that the comparison of their export prices to the EU with the average price of other Chinese exporting producers did not lead to meaningful conclusions, since 1) they are the result of a mix of export strategies, 2) the exporters are subject to different duties which may affect prices and 3) the period considered is too long and price fluctuations could distort the assessment. Furthermore, the applicants presented a set of Eurostat import data with, allegedly, average import prices of the product concerned being higher than the applicant’s prices, thus claiming the existence of an EU premium price.

(43)

The analysis of the import prices in the Union, however, allowed the Commission to establish a reference price level at which the product concerned was commercialised in the Union. Thus, it also allowed assessing whether the applicants export prices to the Union responded to the Union market conditions. The analysis of the import data, at TARIC level, showed that most price of other Chinese exporting producers which exported during the RIP, which may have different export strategies, nevertheless converged within a specific and limited range of prices at CIF level and even narrower after the duty being added. As mentioned above in recitals (26), (30), and (34), the prices of the applicants deviated significantly from the reference price level thus established, which were considered as commercial market prices in the Union. This deviation could not be reasonable explained. Finally, when comparing the prices in the month in which the transaction took place, the result of the analysis remained the same (11).

(44)

Concerning the Eurostat import data provided by the applicants, the Commission noticed that these statistics were at eight-digit CN code level, and therefore, concerned a broader basket of products. In this broader basket, the product concerned represented less than 30 % in terms of volume and less than 25 % in terms of value. The assessment of the Commission was however based on data at ten-digit TARIC code level, which exclusively concerned the product concerned and therefore was a more accurate source of information. The claims were therefore rejected.

(45)

In view of above reasons, the Commission considered that the transactions submitted by the applicants did not constitute a sufficiently representative basis and did not provide a sufficiently accurate reflection of their current and future export pricing behaviour that could form the basis for determining an individual dumping margin. On this basis, the review investigations should be terminated.

(46)

In view of the findings outlined above, the Commission concluded that the reviews concerning imports of TCCA manufactured by the applicants and originating in the PRC should be terminated. The duty applicable to ‘all other companies’ pursuant to Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2230 should apply to products manufactured by the applicants. Consequently, the registration of the applicants’ imports should cease and the country-wide duty applicable to all other companies (42,6 %), imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2230, should be levied on these imports from the date of initiation of these reviews. This is without prejudice to the possibilities of importers asking for a refund in accordance with Article 11(8) of the basic Regulation.

(47)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

(1)

Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly.

(2)

On 10 December 2019, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/2157 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.

(3)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Mark WEINMEISTER.

(4)

The German government has proposed Mr Uwe BECKER, representative of a regional body who is politically accountable to an elected assembly, Staatssekretär für Europaangelegenheiten, politische Verantwortung gegenüber dem Hessischen Landtag (State Secretary for European Affairs, politically accountable to the Parliament of the Federal State of Hesse), as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025,

(1)

In accordance with Article 7 of Directive 2006/42/EC machinery manufactured in conformity with a harmonised standard, the reference to which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, is to be presumed to comply with the essential health and safety requirements covered by such a harmonised standard.

(2)

By letter M/396 of 19 December 2006, the Commission made a request to the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) (‘the request’) for the drafting, the revision and the completion of the work on harmonised standards in support of Directive 2006/42/EC to take account of changes introduced by that Directive in comparison with Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

(3)

On the basis of the request, CEN drafted new harmonised standards EN 13852-3:2021 on light offshore cranes, EN 12385-5:2021 on stranded ropes for lifts, and EN 12609:2021 on safety requirements for truck mixers.

(4)

On the basis of the request, CEN and Cenelec also revised existing harmonised standards, the references of which are published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union by Commission Communication 2018/C 092/01 (4) to adapt them to technological progress. This resulted in the adoption of the following new harmonised standards: EN 12312-5:2021 on aircraft fuelling equipment; EN 13001-2:2021 on crane safety; EN 1501-1:2021 on rear loaded refuse collection vehicles; EN 1501-2:2021 on side loaded refuse collection vehicles; EN 1501-3:2021 on front loaded refuse collection vehicles; EN 1501-5:2021 on lifting devices for refuse collection vehicles; EN 1829-1:2021 on high pressure water jet machines; EN ISO 22868:2021 on the engineering method for noise testing portable hand-held machines with internal combustion engine; EN 303-5:2021 on heating boilers for solid fuels; EN ISO 11202:2010/A1:2021 on determining emission sound pressure levels at a work station and at other specified positions; EN ISO 19085-1:2021 on common requirements for woodworking machines; EN 1756-1:2021 on safety requirements for tail lifts; and EN IEC 62061:2021 on functional safety for safety-related control systems.

(5)

In addition, CEN and Cenelec amended harmonised standards EN 13001-3-6:2018, EN 50636-2-107:2015/A1:2018 and EN 60335-1:2012/A13:2017, the references of which have been published by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 (5).

(6)

The Commission together with CEN and Cenelec has assessed whether the standards drafted, revised and amended by CEN and Cenelec comply with the request.

(7)

The harmonised standards drafted, revised and amended by CEN and Cenelec on the basis of the request satisfy the safety requirements which they aim to cover and which are set out in Directive 2006/42/EC. It is therefore appropriate to publish the references of those standards in the Official Journal of the European Union, together with references of any relevant amending or correcting standards thereto.

(8)

The reference of harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A6:2019 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union with a restriction by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1813 (6). It replaced the reference of harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A5:2018 without providing for a transitional period. In order to give manufacturers time to prepare for the application of the new standard, it is appropriate to exceptionally republish the reference to harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A5:2018 in the Official Journal of the European Union for a limited time period. For reasons of legal certainty, the publication of the reference to harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A5:2018 should cover also the period prior to the entry into force of this Decision.

(9)

The text of the restriction for harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A6:2019 introduced by Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1813 is not clear, since it confuses two separate shortcomings identified with the harmonised standard.

(10)

The first shortcoming concerns the inadequate level of visibility identified with EN 474-1:2006+A6:2019 when applied in combination with EN 474-5:2006+A3:2013 requirements for hydraulic excavators. Harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A6:2019, similarly to harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A5:2018, does not ensure that the driver can operate the machinery and its tools in their foreseeable conditions of use, in complete safety for the driver and exposed persons. Therefore, the restriction provided for in harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A5:2018 in relation to essential health and safety requirements 1.2.2 and 3.2.1 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC should be maintained for harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A6:2019.

(11)

The second shortcoming concerns the fact that the quick couplers mechanism used to attach hydraulic excavators and backhoe loaders to earth-moving machinery does not include an active warning system or active monitoring system for the operator when incorrectly coupling the machine with the extension. As such, harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A6:2019 fails to meet the essential healthy and safety requirements for safety integration and for the prevention of risks from falling objects set out in points 1.1.2 (b), 1.1.2 (c) and 1.3.3 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC. Those points should be referred to in the restriction for harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A6:2019.

(12)

For reasons of clarity and legal certainty, the identified shortcomings should be expressed by way of two separate restrictions for harmonised standard EN 474-1:2006+A6:2019.

(13)

The reference of harmonised standard EN 60335-1:2012 was first published by Commission Communication 2012/C 159/1 (7). The reference of that standard included a reference to corrigendum EN 60335-1:2012/AC:2014 as of publication of that standard by Commission Communication 2016/C 14/1 (8). The reference of harmonised standard EN 60335-1:2012 was published in Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 only with reference to amendments EN 60335-1:2012/A11:2014 and EN 60335-1:2012/A13:2017. By error the reference to corrigendum EN 60335-1:2012/AC:2014 was omitted from the publication of the reference of harmonised standard EN 60335-1:2012 in Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436. It is therefore appropriate to replace the reference of the harmonised standard EN 60335-1:2012 together with the references of amendments EN 60335-1:2012/A11:2014 and EN 60335-1:2012/A13:2017 and include the reference of corrigendum EN 60335-1:2012/AC:2014. For reasons of legal certainty, the reference of harmonised standard EN 60335-1:2012 as amended by this Decision should apply retroactively.

(14)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 provides in Annex I the references of harmonised standards conferring a presumption of conformity with Directive 2006/42/EC and provides in Annex II the references of harmonised standards conferring a presumption of conformity with restrictions. In order to ensure that the references of harmonised standards drafted in support of Directive 2006/42/EC are listed in one act, the references of the standards that are replaced, revised or amended by CEN and Cenelec should be included in Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436.

(15)

Annex III to Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 lists the references of harmonised standards in support of Directive 2006/42/EC that are withdrawn from the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union as from the dates set out in that Annex.

(16)

As a result of the work by CEN and Cenelec on the basis of the request, the following harmonised standards published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union have been replaced, revised or amended: EN 12312-5:2005+A1:2009; EN 13001-2:2014; EN 1501-1:2011+A1:2015; EN 1501-2:2005+A1:2009; EN 1501-3:2008; EN 1501-5:2011; EN 1829-1:2010; EN ISO 22868:2011; EN 303-5:2012; EN ISO 11202:2010; EN ISO 19085-1:2017; EN 1756-1:2001+A1:2008; and EN 62061:2005/A2:2015. It is therefore necessary to withdraw the references of those standards from the Official Journal of the European Union by including those references in Annex III to Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436.

(17)

It is also necessary to withdraw the references of harmonised standards EN 13001-3-6:2018, EN 50636-2-107:2015/A2:2020; and EN 60335-1:2012/A13:2017 published by Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436, given that those standard have been amended. It is therefore appropriate to delete those reference from Annex I to that Implementing Decision.

(18)

In order to give manufacturers sufficient time to prepare for application of the new, revised or amended standards, it is necessary to defer the withdrawal of the references of the following harmonised standards: EN 12312-5:2005+A1:2009; EN 13001-2:2014; EN 1501-1:2011+A1:2015; EN 1501-2:2005+A1:2009; EN 1501-3:2008; EN 1501-5:2011; EN 1829-1:2010; EN ISO 22868:2011; EN 303-5:2012; EN ISO 11202:2010; EN ISO 19085-1:2017; EN 1756-1:2001+A1:2008; EN 62061:2005/A2:2015; EN 13001-3-6:2018, EN 50636-2-107:2015/A2:2020; and EN 60335-1:2012/A13:2017.

(19)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(20)

Compliance with a harmonised standard confers a presumption of conformity with the corresponding essential requirements set out in Union harmonisation legislation from the date of publication of the reference of such standard in the Official Journal of the European Union. This Decision should therefore enter into force on the date of its publication,

(1)

In accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2014/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), electrical equipment which is in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, is to be presumed to be in conformity with the essential requirements set out in Annex I to that Directive covered by those standards or parts thereof.

(2)

By Implementing Decision C(2016) 7641 (3), the Commission made a request to the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for the drafting and revision of harmonised standards for electromagnetic compatibility in support of Directive 2014/30/EU.

(3)

On the basis of the request set out in Implementing Decision C(2016) 7641, CEN and Cenelec drafted the harmonised standard EN IEC 62053-24:2021 and the amendment thereto, EN IEC 62053-24:2021/A11:2021, for static meters for fundamental component reactive energy (classes 0,5S, 1S, 1, 2 and 3).

(4)

On the basis of the request set out in Implementing Decision C(2016) 7641, CEN and Cenelec revised the following harmonised standards, the references of which are published by Commission Communication (OJ C 173, 13.5.2016) (4): EN 62053-21:2003, EN 62053-22:2003, EN 62053-23:2003 and EN 61009-1:2012.

(5)

This resulted in the adoption of, respectively, the following harmonised standards and amendments thereto: EN IEC 62053-21:2021 and EN IEC 62053-21:2021/A11:2021 for static meters for AC active energy (classes 0,5, 1 and 2); EN IEC 62053-22:2021 and EN IEC 62053-22:2021/A11:2021 for static meters for AC active energy (classes 0,1S, 0,2S and 0,5S); EN IEC 62053-23:2021 and EN IEC 62053-23:2021/A11:2021 for static meters for reactive energy (classes 2 and 3); EN 61009-1:2012 and EN 61009-1:2012/A13:2021 for residual current operated circuit-breakers with integral overcurrent protection for household and similar uses.

(6)

The Commission, together with CEN and Cenelec, has assessed whether the harmonised standards EN IEC 62053-24:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-24:2021/A11:2021, EN IEC 62053-21:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-21:2021/A11:2021, EN IEC 62053-22:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-22:2021/A11:2021, EN IEC 62053-23:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-23:2021/A11:2021 and EN 61009-1:2012, as amended by EN 61009-1:2012/A13:2021, comply with the request set out in Implementing Decision C(2016) 7641.

(7)

The harmonised standards EN IEC 62053-24:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-24:2021/A11:2021, EN IEC 62053-21:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-21:2021/A11:2021, EN IEC 62053-22:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-22:2021/A11:2021, EN IEC 62053-23:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-23:2021/A11:2021, and EN 61009-1:2012, as amended by EN 61009-1:2012/A13:2021, satisfy the essential requirements which they aim to cover and which are set out in Directive 2014/30/EU. It is therefore appropriate to publish the references of those harmonised standards, together with the relevant amending standards thereto, in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(8)

Annex I to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1326 (5) lists the references of harmonised standards conferring a presumption of conformity with Directive 2014/30/EU. In order to ensure that the references of harmonised standards drafted in support of Directive 2014/30/EU are listed in one act, the references of those standards, together with the references of the relevant amending standards thereto, should be included in that Annex.

(9)

It is therefore necessary to withdraw from the Official Journal of the European Union the references of the following harmonised standards published by Communication (OJ C 173, 13.5.2016): EN 62053-21:2003, EN 62053-22:2003, EN 62053-23:2003 and EN 61009-1:2012.

(10)

Annex II to Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1326 lists the references of harmonised standards drafted in support of Directive 2014/30/EU that are withdrawn from the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union. It is therefore appropriate to include those references in that Annex.

(11)

In order to give manufacturers sufficient time to prepare for the application of harmonised standards EN IEC 62053-21:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-21:2021/A11:2021, EN IEC 62053-22:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-22:2021/A11:2021, EN IEC 62053-23:2021, as amended by EN IEC 62053-23:2021/A11:2021, and EN 61009-1:2012, as amended by EN 61009-1:2012/A13:2021, it is necessary to defer the withdrawal of the references of the following harmonised standards: EN 62053-21:2003, EN 62053-22:2003, EN 62053-23:2003 and EN 61009-1:2012.

(12)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1326 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(13)

Compliance with a harmonised standard confers a presumption of conformity with the corresponding essential requirements set out in Union harmonisation legislation from the date of publication of the reference of such standard in the Official Journal of the European Union. This Decision should therefore enter into force on the day of its publication,

(1)

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an infectious viral disease in birds and may have a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and exports to third countries. HPAI viruses can infect migratory birds, which can then spread these viruses over long distances during their autumn and spring migrations. Therefore, the presence of HPAI viruses in wild birds poses a continuous threat for the direct and indirect introduction of these viruses into holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept. In the event of an outbreak of HPAI, there is a risk that the disease agent may spread to other holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept.

(2)

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 establishes a new legislative framework for the prevention and control of diseases that are transmissible to animals or humans. HPAI falls within the definition of a listed disease in that Regulation, and it is subject to the disease prevention and control rules laid down therein. In addition, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (2) supplements Regulation (EU) 2016/429 as regards the rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases, including disease control measures for HPAI.

(3)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 (3) has been adopted within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and it lays down disease control measures in relation to outbreaks of HPAI.

(4)

More particularly, Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 provides that the protection, surveillance zones and further restricted zones established by the Member States following outbreaks of HPAI, in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, are to comprise at least the areas listed as protection, surveillance and further restricted zones in the Annex to that Implementing Decision.

(5)

The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 was recently amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/522 (4) following outbreaks of HPAI in poultry or captive birds in Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and Romania that needed to be reflected in that Annex.

(6)

Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/522, Germany, France, Italy and Romania have notified the Commission of further outbreaks of HPAI in establishments where poultry or captive birds were kept, located within or outside the areas listed in the Annex to that Implementing Decision.

(7)

In addition, Belgium has notified the Commission of an outbreak of HPAI of subtype H5N1 in an establishment where poultry or captive birds were kept, located in the West Flanders province of that Member State.

(8)

Moreover, Bulgaria has notified the Commission of an outbreak of HPAI of subtype H5N1 in an establishment where poultry or captive birds were kept, located in the Plovdiv province of that Member State.

(9)

Furthermore, Denmark has notified the Commission of an outbreak of HPAI of subtype H5N1 in an establishment where poultry or captive birds were kept, located in the Langeland municipality of that Member State.

(10)

The competent authorities of Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy and Romania have taken the necessary disease control measures required in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around those outbreaks.

(11)

In addition, the competent authority of France decided to establish a further restricted zone in addition to the protection and surveillance zones established for certain outbreaks located in Pays de la Loire region of that Member State.

(12)

The Commission has examined the disease control measures taken by Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy and Romania in collaboration with those Member States and it is satisfied that the boundaries of the protection and surveillance zones in Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy and Romania, established by the competent authorities of those Member States and of the further restricted zone established by France, are at a sufficient distance from the establishments where the recent outbreaks of HPAI have been confirmed.

(13)

In the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641, there are currently no areas listed as protection and surveillance zones for Belgium and Denmark, and no areas listed as a protection zone for Bulgaria.

(14)

In order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade being imposed by third countries, it is necessary to rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy and Romania, the protection and surveillance zones established by those Member States in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, as well as the further restricted zone established by France.

(15)

Therefore, the areas listed for Bulgaria, Germany, France, Italy and Romania in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended.

(16)

In addition, protection and surveillance zones should be listed for Belgium and Denmark and a protection zone should be listed for Bulgaria in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641.

(17)

Accordingly, the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended to update regionalisation at Union level to take account of the protection and surveillance zones duly established by Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy and Romania and of the further restricted zone duly established by France in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, and the duration of the measures applicable therein.

(18)

In addition, Article 23 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 provides that the competent authority may grant derogations from the measures to be applied in restricted zones, to the extent necessary and after carrying out a risk assessment. Accordingly, the competent authorities of the concerned Member States may allow movements of consignments of poultry, captive birds, hatching eggs and specific pathogen-free eggs from such zones. Such consignments may be moved to other Member States if accompanied by the relevant animal health certificate or animal health/official certificate for these commodities set out in Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/403 (5). An attestation should therefore be added to such certificates stating that the consignments comply with Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641.

(19)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(20)

Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of HPAI, it is important that the amendments to be made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 by this Decision take effect as soon as possible.

(21)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,